Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T16:05:25.349Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

People's Democracy, the Proletarian Dictatorship and the Czechoslovak Path to Socialism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

H. Gordon Skilling
H. Gordon Skilling*
Affiliation:
Dartmouth College Russian Institute, Columbia University, 1949-51
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On October 4, 1946, Klement Gottwald, leader of the Czechoslovak Communist Party, and at that time Prime Minister of the Czechoslovak Republic, declared that the experience of Czechoslovakia had shown “what had been foreseen theoretically by Marxist classics, namely, that there exists another path to socialism than by way of a dictatorship of the proletariat and the soviet state system. Going by this path are Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Poland, and also Czechoslovakia.” So ran the report of his speech in the collection of his articles and speeches, Ten Years, published in 1947. Only two years later, the same speech was included in a new collection of Gottwald's works, with, however, the phrase “a dictatorship of the proletariat” deleted, and the country, Yugoslavia, omitted. This editorial modification of an authoritative statement puts into sharp relief the change of view which had occurred in the interval in the interpretation placed on the people's democracy by Czechoslovak Communists.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Slavic and East European Review , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , April 1951 , pp. 100 - 116
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies 1951

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Deset Let (Prague, 1947), pp. 349-50. See also a speech of September 25, 1946, ibid., p. 349.

2 Klement Gottwald, 1946-1948 (Prague, 1949), I, 84. The speech of September 25, 1946, was not included in this collection. See similar statements in 1947, ibid., pp. 114, 126, 232-3.

3 Stalin, Joseph, Problems of Leninism (Moscow, 1940), p. 120.Google Scholar

4 “The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky,” in Lenin, V. I., Selected Works (New York, n. d.), VII, 119.Google Scholar

5 The evolution of the concept of people's democracy in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union is discussed by Sharp, Samuel L., New Constitutions in the Soviet Sphere (Washington, 1950), Chapter IIGoogle Scholar; by Rosa, Ruth Amende, “The Soviet Theory of ‘People's Democracy,'” World Politics, I, No. 4 (July, 1949), 489–510 Google Scholar; and by Heitjman, M., “Events Behind the Iron Curtain,” International Journal, IV, No. 4 (1949), 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Note earlier articles by S. L. Sharp (S. L. S.) in American Perspective, November, 1947, September, 1948, and March, 1949.

6 Deset Let, pp. 349-50. Cf. articles in the Czech Communist weekly, Tvorba, by F. Nečásek, “Klement Gottwald on Our Path to Socialism,” and Fr. Lužický, “Concerning Diverse Paths to Socialism,” Tvorba, November 6, 1946, and December 11, 1946.

This is not unlike the view of Eduard Benes that every nation would develop toward more perfect forms of political, social and economic democracy on the basis of its own conditions and not after the fashion of the October revolution. See Demokracie dnes a zítra (Democracy Today and Tomorrow) (Prague, 1946), p. 266.

Views similar to Gottwald's were expressed by the Bulgarian Communist leader, Dimitrov, later prominent in enunciating the doctrine identifying the people's democracy with the dictatorship of the proletariat. In an address in February, 1946, Dimitrov declared that “every nation will effect its transition to Socialism not by a mapped-out route, not exactly as in the Soviet Union, but by its own road, dependent on its historical, national, social and cultural circumstances.” He termed this “our own Bulgarian course toward Socialism” and spoke of it as “a realistic and painless road to Socialism.” English translation is given in Political Affairs, August, 1946, pp. 696 ff.

7 Ibid., pp. 275 ff., especially 283-4.

8 Ibid., p. 284.

9 In particular, note the authoritative party pamphlet, Naše cesta k socialismu (Our Path to Socialism) (Prague, n. d.), containing the text of a speech given at a conference of party educational workers in late 1947 by the leading intellectual spokesman of the Party, Gustav Bareš.

10 This interpretation resembled in many respects the influential articles of leading Soviet spokesmen, such as Trainin, I. P., “Democracy of a Special Type,“ Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo, No. 1, 1947, pp. 1–15, and No. 3, 1947, pp. 1-14Google Scholar; and Varga, E. S., “Democracies of a New Type,” Mirovoe khozjajstvo i mirovaja politika, No. 3, 1947, pp. 3–14.Google Scholar See the summary of these views in Sharp, S. L., “New Democracy—A Soviet Interpretation,” American Perspective, I, No. 6 (November, 1947), 368—81 Google Scholar. It is interesting to note that essential parts of Trainin's article were published in translation in Tvorba, September 24, 1947.

11 See Prochazka, V., “People's Democracy and the New Constitution of the Czechoslovak Republic,” Nová My si, I, No. 2 (1947), 2–21 Google Scholar; his speech, “Concerning Our New Constitution,” I Konference Právníků-Komunistů (Prague, 1946), pp. 20–34 Google Scholar; his article, “Concerning a New Constitution of the Czechoslovak Republic,“ Tvorba, March 19, 1947 Google Scholar.

12 I Konference, p. 20.

13 Procházka, article in Nová Mysl cited n. 11, p. 18.

14 Oliva, F., “Some Theoretical Notes on the Economy of the Czechoslovak People's Democracy,” Nová Mysl, I, No. 1, (1947), 21–31.Google Scholar

15 For example, in articles by Slanský, R., Bareš, G. and Čivrný, L., in K padesátinám soudruha Gottivalda 1896-1946 ﹛Comrade Gottwald's Fiftieth Anniversary), (Prague, 1946), pp. 26–31, 98, and 296-9Google Scholar; Rais, Štefan, “Klement Gottwald—Twenty Years at the Head of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia,” Nová Mysl, II, No. 5-6 (1948), 408.Google Scholar

16 Slanský, R., “Of the Great Work and Life of Comrade Gottwald,” in the symposium cited n. 15, pp. 26–31.Google Scholar

17 See McKenzie, K. E., “The Soviet Union, the Comintern and World Revolution: 1935,” Political Science Quarterly, LXV, No. 2 (June, 1950), 214–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Such a comparison of the people's democracy with the pre-war people's front is rare in Soviet literature. An exception is found in I. P. Trainin, op. cit. Dimitrov himself does not seem to have publicly spoken of such a relationship between pre-war and post-war policies.

18 Dimitrov, G., The United Front (New York, 1938), pp. 9–93.Google Scholar

19 Ibid., p. 73.

20 Ibid., p. 88. Cf. K. E. McKenzie, op. cit.

21 Ibid., p. 75.

22 Ibid., p. 75.

23 Deset Let, pp. 13-18, especially pp. 17-18.

24 Ibid., pp. 13-129.

25 Ibid., pp. 189, 228-33, 240-2.

26 See the standard analysis of the people's democracies by Ždanov, A. A. and Slanský, R. in their reports to the first Cominform meeting in Poland, in For a Lasting Peace, For a People's Democracy!, November 10, 1947, and December 1, 1947. Russian texts given in Informacionnoe soveslanie predstavitelej nekotorykh kompartii v Poise (Moscow, 1948).Google Scholar

27 Deset Let, pp. 288-9.

28 See Slansky's speech just cited, and Gottwald's speeches to the Central Committee of the Party on January 22 and November 27, 1947 (Klement QotPwald, 1946-1948, I, 114 ft and 266 ff.). Cf. also Bareš’ pamphlet, Our Path to Socialism, pp. 32-34, where he warned of the danger of a “reactionary putsch” and urged “the renascence of the National Front, its purification of reactionary elements.“

29 Element Gottwald, 1(146-1948, II, 277.

30 Ibid., pp. 281-3.

31 Ibid., pp. 136, 273-4.

32 Ibid., p. 283.

33 For the above, see especially the speeches of March 28, April 9, and November 17, 1948, ibid., pp. 90, 122 and 260. Cr. also R. Slanski (sic), For a Lasting Peace, March 15, 1948.

34 G., Bareš, “Concerning Our Path to Socialism,” Tvorba, September 22, 1948.Google Scholar

35 V. Procházka, , “The Struggle Over the New Constitution,” Tvorba, March 3 and March 10, 1948.Google Scholar

36 ústava 9.května (The Constitution of May 9) (Prague, 1948), p. 19. The report of the Constitutional Committee, of which Professor Procházka was rapporteur, emphasized the necessity for the constitution to express the social situation at a given stage of development and continued: “As a people's democracy we are a state whose institutions are in the midst of a transition to socialism. The new constitution must therefore also capture the main trend of this development, for these trends, too, are just as much a reality as the situation of the present moment. This means that the constitution must not only be the legal basis of contemporary conditions, but must also provide a framework within which the chief trend of development of the people's democracy, namely, the progression toward socialism, may proceed and be achieved without turmoil.” Ibid., pp. 111-2.

37 Oliva's, F. earlier article from Nová My si, with slight revision, is included in Plánování ekonomický zákon socialismu (Planning, The Economic Law of Socialism) (Prague, 1949), pp. 23–38.Google Scholar

38 Cf. the articles by S. L. Sharp in American Perspective, November, 1947, and September, 1948, and his book, New Constitutions in the Soviet Sphere, pp. 13-5, and the article by Ruth A. Rosa in World Politics, cited above. The latter seeks to prove the abrupt change in Soviet interpretation following the Cominform denunciation of Yugoslavia. This is open to question, even on the evidence presented in the article itself, in view of the considerable similarity between essential elements of the doctrine of people's democracy before and after this event and the long process of discussion which preceded the actual formulation of the new doctrine by Dimitrov. S. L. Sharp seeks to make the earlier version a mere camouflage and to describe the new version as having little ideological foundation; this view, for the same reasons, seems highly exaggerated.

39 Text in For a Lasting Peace, For a People's Democracy!, July 1, 1948; also in The Soviet-Yugoslav Dispute (London and New York, 1948), pp. 61 ff.Google Scholar

40 Voprosy ekonomiki, No. 9, 1948, pp. 102-8, condensed in Current Digest of the Soviet Press, I, No. 12, 1949, 21-24. This significant speech was not noted by Miss Rosa.

41 An abridged report of this speech and his concluding remarks were given in Pravda, December 21 and 27, 1948, and in For a Lasting Peace, January 1, 1949. A full Russian text was published in Sofia under the title Političeskif otčet C. K. BRP(k) (Sofia, 1948). A partial text is also available in English in Free Bulgaria, January 1, 1949. A summary is given in Samuel L. Sharp, New Constitutions in the Soviet Sphere, pp. 16-18, and in the Current Digest of the Soviet Press, I, No. 1, 32-34.

42 An important speech was given almost simultaneously by B. Bierut, Polish Communist, at the United Congress of the Polish Workers’ party and the Polish Socialist party (Pravda, December 17, 1948, and For a Lasting Peace, January 1, 1949). A speech by the Hungarian Communist leader, M. Rakosi, shortly after those of Dimitrov and Bierut, contained a similar re-evaluation of party policy and theory (New York Times, January 23, 1949). Cf. M. Rakosi, “L'État de la democratic nouvelle,” Démocratie nouvelle, V, No. 2, 1949. An article by the Hungarian Communist, J. Revai, along similar lines, was given in translation, with commentary, in Foreign Affairs, 28, No. 1, October, 1949, 143-52, under the title “The Character of a ‘People's Democracy.'“

43 See in particular the book by Farberov, N. P., Gosudarstvennoe pravo man narodnoj aemokratii (Public Law of the Countries of People's Democracy) (Moscow, 1949).Google Scholar

44 In Russian, “otmenjaet“; in Pravda, “izmenit,” “to change.“

45 Političeskij otčet, pp. 130-1. Cf. a slightly different version in Pravda, December 27, 1948, also quoted in Teoria gosudarstva i prava (Theory of State and Law) (Moscow, 1949), pp. 457-8.

46 Političeskij otčet, pp. 71-77; Pravda, December 21, 1948.

47 Političeskij otčet, p. 131.

48 Ibid., p. 67.

49 Ibid., p. 66.

50 For a Lasting Peace, January 1, 1949. Cf. Bierut's earlier speech to the Central Committee of the Polish Party, given in For a Lasting Peace, September 15, 1948. Cf. the criticism of errors and deviations in Eastern European Communist Parties by N. P. Farberov, Gosudarstvennoe pravo stran narodnoj demokratii, pp. 38-40, and in his article, “On Classes and Parties in the People's Democracies of Central and Southeastern Europe,” Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo, No. 9, 1949, pp. 8-22, condensed in English in Current Digest of the Soviet Press, II, No. 4, 3-5.

51 Text in Nová Mysi, III, No. 1, 1949, 8. The text of Dimitrov's speech had been given in part in Tvorba, January 5, 1949.

52 See, for example, Jan Štern, “Lenin and Leninism,” Tvorba, January 19, 1949; M. Galuška, “The International Significance of the Great October Revolution,“ Tvorba, November 2, 1949; Č. Císař, “The Development of the Czechoslovak People's Democracy and Class Struggles in the Period from May to February,“ Nová Mysl, III, No. 3, 1949, 225-44; G. Bareš, “Leninist Doctrine of the Transition from Capitalism to Socialism and the Building of Socialism in the People's Democracies,“ Nová Mysl, IV, No. 4, 1950, 279-94; Z. Půček and J. Flek, “Class Structure of the Czechoslovak Economy,” Plánováné Hospodářství, III, No. 4-5, 1950, 205-16.

53 For example, the important discussions in the Institute of Law of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR in April, 1949, were translated from Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo, No. 5, 1949, in Nová Mysl, III, No. 3, 1949, 306-14. See also N. P. Farberov, “New Features in the Development of People's Democracy,” Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo, No. 1, 1949, and “Concerning Classes and Parties in the People's Democracies of Central and Southeastern Europe,” ibid., No. 9, 1949, translated in Nová Mysl, III, No. 2, 1949, 145-61, and ibid., IV, No. 3, 1950, 199-212; P. F. Yudin, “On the Path of Transition to Socialism in the People's Democracies,” Voprosy filosofii, No. 1, 1949, translated in Nová Mysl, IV, No. 1, 1950, 29-48; N. Pukhlov, “Reorganization of Agriculture in the People's Democracies,” Voprosy ekonomiki, No. 10, 1949, translated in Nová Mysl, IV, No. 2, 1950, 81-97, and in Plánováné Hospodářství, III, No. 1, 1950, 30-47. See also the book in Slovak, Čo je L'udová Demokracia (What is People's Democracy) (Bratislava, 1950), including excerpts from the statements on the subject of the people's democracy by Yudin, Bierut, Rakosi, Mao and Slanský.

54 It is interesting that Farberov in his extensive discussions of deviations in Eastern Europe criticizes every Communist Party except the Czechoslovak.

55 For the above, see especially the articles by Bareš and by Půček and Flek cited in note 52.

56 A very interesting statement of the current doctrine was made by the Polish Communist, Hilary Mine, in early 1950, in an article available in English in Political Affairs, XXIX, Nos. 6 and 7, July, 1950, and August, 1950, under the title, “Some Problems of the People's Democracy in the Light of Leninist-Stalinist Teachings on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.” He concludes that the tendency of development of the people's democracy was “to make up for the historical delay, to build socialism on the basis of the experience of the USSR. It is clear that as the People's Democracies will pass over from the first phase of development of the socialist state to the second, the divergences of system in relation to the USSR will decrease.” This “signifies nothing else than the striving toward making up the historical delay, catching up with the USSR and marching with it and under its leadership towards Communism” (p. 96).

In a recent article Klement Gottwald has written: “There is no doubt that the successful building of Communism in the USSR shows, on the example of the highest and most progressive economy, the highest and most advanced technique, the path forward for the People's Democracies in Socialist construction, and, to a great extent, shortens the period of building Socialism in these countries, thus opening up for the present generation the prospect of going over to the building of Communism.” (For a Lasting Peace, November 3, 1950.)